my subscriptions
gartral 2 points

your options are literially call the stores and hope, failing that, pay 6 quid more and deal, or TRY the tesco brand and see if it's comparable, you're out what? 12 pounds if it's shit? if you're traveling and not budgeting for "oops" then you need to learn to travel better!

hd909 3 points

Or simply visit the chemist's and walk away with the item. Why even go through the hassle of ordering something online, waiting till the next day and paying 6 quid more? It's stupid. You could walk out of the chemist's shop with the item you wanted immediately instead of settling with rubbish or waiting a day and paying more.

gartral 1 point

that was literally the first option I was implying... though I suppose my own tendency to call ahead and confirm the store has what i'm looking for in stock isn't the norm.

hd909 4 points

Oh. You mean the shop?

Load more comments
hd909 commented on a post in r/NoStupidQuestions
ToastyBagel_ -8 points

In England this is how things are percieved. Not really sure why this got downvoted. This is our culture. Its not normal for us to cuddle and sleep in the same bed. And honestly at first glance it gives me real oedipus* complex vibes.

*not sure if its spelled right but i feel im close enough for you to get what i mean.

hd909 2 points

This is not Oedipus complex.

The positive Oedipus complex refers to a child's unconscious sexual desire for the opposite-sex parent and hatred for the same-sex parent. The negative Oedipus complex refers to a child's unconscious sexual desire for the same-sex parent and hatred for the opposite-sex parent.

Considering OP doesn't have a same-sex parent this doesn't apply.

hd909 commented on a post in r/AskUK
tizz66 2 points

I left school 20 years ago and it was a prom even back then. If it's an Americanism, it isn't a new thing.

crucible 2 points

That must have been a regional thing, I guess. Only ever seen them as proms at the place I work at, and that's since 2002 or so

hd909 3 points

It is an Americanism.

hd909 2 points

The word is American in origin. Whoever organised the event in your school was influenced by them.

Load more comments
[deleted] 7 points


hd909 7 points

Yes! Thanks for showing your interest! I feel like the NFL has a bright future in Australia and they'd do even better there than the games they do in the UK, which is a pretty sports saturated market and stuck in their ways. Only issue would the logistics of flying all the way there.

[deleted] 8 points


hd909 3 points

What if recorded matches are shown on tv without breaks? Do you think it will draw in more viewers? Many in the UK said the same thing about the sport but when Sky Sports began showing the sport without breaks on a free satellite channel that won over a lot of new fans. Do you think this will work in Australia?

Load more comments
hd909 commented on a post in r/soccer
paw05 1 point

No it's isn't. It's because the football teams also have college teams so the likes get dispersed across the various collegiate teams. In regards to my American football Vs cricket comment; it was more of a throwaway comment used to emphasise the unpopularity of cricket here, and I didn't necessarily mean the specific member or participant count anyway. More specifically, it was related to how little interest cricket has here, and that even American football garners far more public interest. This interest relates to things like promotion, Facebook posts as well as fan/casuals turnout for games, as opposed to actual players

hd909 1 point

Ok, so its hard to say. I could ask somebody else and get a different answer because exposure to any sport in university really depends on the circles you are in.

paw05 1 point

That would be the case in most scenarios but as I've explained to you numerous times that is not the case here. The exposure I'm referring to isn't related to my circles because I'm literally going off fan turnouts and the stuff that gets posted on our university page. These two aspects have nothing to do with my social circle unless you consider the entire university my social circle, and unfortunately I'm not friends with 13000 people

hd909 1 point

Yeah, at the end of the day this is all anecdotal. I only questioned you here because you said cricket wasn't being contested and American football is supposedly "significantly more popular." You then backtracked and claimed cricket was being played, but you simply weren't aware of it. So based on that, I can conclude cricket is popular among certain circles and less popular with yours.

Load more comments
hd909 commented on a post in r/AskUK
tobermorybestwomble 1 point

So how about vitamin?

hd909 2 points

/ˈvɪtəmɪn/ is the correct pronunciation.

Minihood1997 7 points

No the Americans are wrong.

There was even supposed to be a consensus where Sulfur was changed to be officially spelled with an f like the Americans instead of ph, and in return the Americans would spell Aluminium with the i.

hd909 6 points

Which evidently failed. The American Chemical Society refuses to budge from "aluminum" and "cesium", and the IUPAC even accepted both of those spellings as alternatives.

Load more comments
Wheres_that_to 2 points

It will always be sulphur to me, and nope to the wrong spelling of colour or neighbour.

hd909 2 points

agreed! that's our English.

SoutherlyOar 1 point

I'm not sure what is weak about the line of reasoning in the article, the authors make a reasonable attempt to explain the facts. It is difficult because it isone of those subjective things, everyone has a different opinion.

For IUPAC, I don't think it is necessarily the case that it is a bias towards US vsUK English. Most non-native speakers (say from mainland Europe or Asia) will learn scientific English (often to a higher quality than native speakers) through textbooks and journal articles. Through sheer volume a major preponderence of this is from USA. So Americanisms permeate through.

Another way of looking at it (which I can relate to) is that the IUPAC committee will be human, this is a relatively little problem that only really bothers a few people. How many of the committee really want to argue about this?

hd909 3 points

Here are the facts;

  • The original English loanword from Latin is "Sulphur", has been in use for centuries and been accepted as the correct term. "Sulfur" was a later term that didn't even register in British English (the original form of the language) until the 20th. century.

  • The fact that the word didn't originate from Greek shouldn't really matter, otherwise you should also drop the 'u' in colour because the original Old French word is spelt 'color.' And a whole lot of other words would need their spellings altered if you want to be true to the source of the word.

  • Clearly the IUPAC has argued about "aluminum" and "cesium" being accepted, so why not the British term "sulphur"? If they're making exceptions for the American words surely the same courtesy should be extended to British words? They're human, and biased, that's why.

Load more comments
hd909 commented on a post in r/NoStupidQuestions
hd909 9 points

The Oxford English Dictionary, published by the Oxford University Press and by far the most comprehensive source of the language in Britain holds the keys and stewards on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen. So yeah the OUP does kind of determine the vocabulary used by the Queen.

hd909 commented on a post in r/AskUK
stevetheboy 19 points

Maybe she was sending a resume rather than her CV. There is a difference.

hd909 6 points

A resume is a summary and a CV is a brief account of a person's education, qualifications, and previous occupations, typically sent with a job application. It depends on the purpose of his sister's application. If it's for a job it's usually a CV that's requested and not a summary.

ShowMeTheMank 3 points

Funny thing is, is that in North America it's the exact opposite!

UK: CV short, resume long NA: CV long, resume short

I sent out way too many of each out in NA before someone told me that....

hd909 5 points

I wouldn't classify it as long, unless your summary happens to be longer than 2 sides of A4 that's the usual standard for CVs' (a single page is also common for people with less experience to pen). A resume isn't restricted to job applications though, it can be a verbal or written summary of anything really!

Load more comments
hd909 commented on a post in r/NoStupidQuestions
hd909 10 points

Sure. Happened recently with a friend of mine who fell asleep in a bin at a motorway service station. Family didn't even have a body to bury.

[deleted] 3 points


hd909 3 points


Load more comments
hd909 commented on a post in r/AskReddit
hd909 1 point

In multiple games. I was playing the original Quake the other day and immediately got along with a guy I'd never met, because we were the only people playing the game.

mykeedee 1 point

Hanzo is about as much of a sniper as Soldier is, and Widowmaker is played so much in OWL because they have a 144 tick LAN Client which the rest of us do not. Widowmaker isn't as consistent or effective online.

hd909 2 points

Hanzo as is usually snipes from twice Soldier's range, the new Hanzo has much greater sniping capability.

21Rollie 2 points

The pro meta is already dominated by widow, what do you mean?

hd909 1 point

Who says? Tracer and Junkrat are picked just as frequently.

Load more comments
hd909 commented on a post in r/NoStupidQuestions
SpiderJax99 22 points

Before the 1950/60s all pencils were actual lead.

Edit: I was wrong. This comment is fake news.

hd909 40 points

That's not correct. Pencils were made out of graphite ever since it was first invented. It was mistakenly identified as black lead back then. The tradition of calling sticks of graphite “lead” has endured to this day. There was a form of writing instrument in ancient times before the pencil called a stylus that sometimes was made of lead.

Mr_Denial 1 point

Linguist here. When you make arguments about language, you can’t just keep pointing at dictionary definitions and saying ‘why can’t I say this’ or ‘why do we say this’, then proceeding to dispute every logical explanation people give you to answer the question.

Your post itself acknowledges that people don’t use the term ‘grocery’ to refer to a grocery store, so why start pretending now that you need a credible source on the scarcity of a word and how often its different meanings are used (even when no such source is physically possible)

Instead, look around you, because language transforms constantly and there’s nothing you can physically do about it, meanings fade out of use and become archaic.

It just so happens that ‘grocery’ is recognised as a singular form of ‘groceries’, (people even say ‘grocery shopping’) so the specification of ‘store’ becomes apparent. (you can refer to a single item as a ‘grocery’, but seldom/never would you refer to a single item from a bakery as ‘bakery’). Look to fishery, a word you can not conceivably use to describe a single fish, and conveniently our pattern falls right into place, no ‘store’ added.

Even if you disagree with this, you cannot dispute something that exists all around you; the fact that ‘groceries’ are referred to as grocery stores and bakeries etc are not referred to as bakery stores. Language changes depending on its use in real contexts, and not by how each of its components are supposed to be used and defined. If you notice an unusual pattern in language, the chances are people have simply adapted it to be that way. We’re lucky that this situation actually carries some syntactical/grammatical patterns, as often language change does not.

As regards to PIN number, most linguists identify that ‘PIN’ already being a word makes it more likely that we would begin to use ‘number’ to specify its meaning. ‘ATM Machine’ works on the similar principle of over-specification, but is a fascinating natural language phenomenon in itself. It helps to drop the 'right and wrong' prescriptive approach when it comes to explaining language use and just accept how things are, then open yourself to explanations as to why they might be that way.

hd909 0 points

then proceeding to dispute every logical explanation people give you to answer the question.

Except no answer given so far was "logical" by any stretch. Unless you have since altered the definition of the word according to your whims and fancies. If it was, I'd have no problem conceding my point. Applying the slightest amount of logic to the term would lead to a dead-end, just like "ATM machine." This is indeed a case of RAS syndrome, and worse still it seems to be regional. The word "grocery store" isn't used in the country of origin of the English language. They use "grocer's", "greengrocer's" or simply "grocery." So this is only a problem in North American countries which have adopted the English language, and undoubtedly simplified the original language. A classic example is the (color/colour) difference. That applies in the case of "ATM machine" too, the term "cash machine" being favoured over "ATM" in the country of origin of both the machine and the English language.

It just so happens that ‘grocery’ is recognised as a singular form of ‘groceries’, (people even say ‘grocery shopping’) so the specification of ‘store’ becomes apparent. (you can refer to a single item as a ‘grocery’, but seldom/never would you refer to a single item from a bakery as ‘bakery’)

This is not a claim you can make without some citations. I hadn't even looked up the word in the dictionary when I first disagreed with the other person on the usage of the term "bakery", because I recalled hearing the term used for baked goods. Looking it up corroborated my anecdotal knowledge. The usage of the term "bakery" to mean a baked good isn't limited to the country of origin of the English language either. It is also in the North American vocabulary. The usage of the singular form "grocery" to refer to a single item of food is unheard of in proper English speaking countries, and so is the term "grocery store." You don't say "grocery shopping", you say "shopping for groceries." I can't speak for countries using the simplified form of the English language, but their dictionaries seem to mostly mirror proper English vocabulary usage. Also, "fishery" cannot be used to describe fish, singular or plural. It refers to the place or occupation, not the fish itself. "Bakery" and "groceries" can be used to describe the product. But "grocery" cannot be used to describe it, so it is equivalent to fishery in that "store" should not be present at the end.

you cannot dispute something that exists all around you; the fact that ‘groceries’ are referred to as grocery stores and bakeries etc are not referred to as bakery stores.

It doesn't exist around me. I mainly brought this up because I frequently hear people from a specific country using that term here on reddit. Where I live, we speak English and "grocery" and "bakery" are the only terms ever used to refer to the establishment ("bakery" is also used to refer to baked goods occasionally).

most linguists identify that ‘PIN’ already being a word makes it more likely that we would begin to use ‘number’ to specify its meaning

How come? There shouldn't be confusion with context. If you're in a bank and a front desk worker talks about PIN it should be clear what "PIN" refers to. If somebody asks for a "pin" to tie their hair or something it should also be clear on what it refers to. I doubt your self-proclaimed credentials as a "linguist."

The bottom-line is you should be open to new changes because languages evolve all the time. However if that change happens to be a regional/country-specific one, makes very little logical sense because it lengthens an already specific word and the rest of the English speaking world including the country of origin of the language doesn't use that new term for obvious reasons, I believe one should not be so open to such illogical and unwanted changes. It seems evident that this is a word that was usedd incorrectly by a few people in these countries and has since caught on. Even then, there are still people in these countries who realize that the addition of "store" is unnecessary and stick to proper English conventions as evident from this thread.

Mr_Denial 1 point

Your post is literally pointless at this point... you asked (apparently just being ‘curious’) about why people say ‘grocery’ store and now you’re out of ideas so you start referring to groups of people and people in your area that do not say ‘grocery’ store. That’s not relevant to any of your answers on this post. It doesn’t invalidate any of the answers, as the whole point is people are trying to hit home to you possibilities for the issue YOU brought up.

Go try this on r/explainlikeimfive if you’re deeply passionate about this

“I believe one should not be open to such illogical and unwanted changes”

As already mentioned, it’s already clear that you’re not here to find answers or even CONSIDER explanations for your question but rather to moan about the fact some people say ‘grocery store’ and just claim it’s wrong.

You’re a prescriptivist and that’s fine to be that way, but there is literally nothing you can do about it so you are wasting your time complaining.

Bottom line: language change won’t always make sense and it will affect areas that you think it ‘shouldn’t’. Popular terms spread far more easily especially due to modern tech/social media now

hd909 1 point

I made the post because I expected the people who replied to this thread to actually support their points with citations and dictionary references. Perhaps that was too much to ask of this subreddit, and anecdotal evidence is all one has to go on. I'm afraid the only people running out of ideas here are the people trying to desperately uphold "grocery store" as a correct term despite all the evidence to the contrary. I'm simply providing facts and citations to counter anecdotes. Idk how that's not "relevant." I don't have the herd mentality necessary to blindly follow anecdotal conventions on changes in the language in countries that adopted the original language and proceeded to simplify it. Sorry you don't see it that way and want everybody to be sheep. Also what would be the point of posting it on ELI5 when the majority of responses will again be anecdotes from similar people? Reddit is a forum dominated by people from a specific country, which is fair enough considering the forum was created by them but arguing with them on something they perceive to be entirely normal would be like teaching a pig how to fly.

I'm sure you realize a lot of people wouldn't take anecdotal points as fact. Which yet again is why I doubt your credentials. I don't know of any linguist who simply follows anecdotes to explain changes in the language. And your posting history doesn't inspire confidence either. Perhaps you should have thought of a more suitable job to describe yourself if you're going to make it up because this is hilarious.

Bottom-line: Anecdotes and facts are 2 distinct bodies. When done properly, changes in the English language will always be supported by citations on why and how the term has come into use. When done improperly in a country that didn't originate the language, anecdotes and spin doctors are what you get. You can choose to believe what you want. Some people believe God created food and water for us and can take it away at any time. Others believe the scientific evidence that explains how food and water came into being is far more solid than attributing it to a supernatural force. To each their own :)

Load more comments
view more:
next ›
10,453 Karma
7,775 Post Karma
2,678 Comment Karma

Following this user will show all the posts they make to their profile on your front page.

About hd909

  • Reddit Birthday

    April 29, 2014

Other Interesting Profiles

    Want to make posts on your
    own profile?

    Sign up to test the Reddit post to profile beta.

    Sign up